KRISHNA SINGH, J. - (1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company being aggrieved against the impugned judgment and award dated 13.8.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Kanpur Dehat in MACT No. 383 of 2003 (Vasudeo and others v. Rajkumar Trivedi and others) awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,30,000/- along-with the interest @ 9% per annum to the respondents-claimants inter alia on the ground that the compensation, which has been awarded in favour of respondents-claimants is excessive and also that the Tribunal has not calculated the compensation as contemplated in law.
(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that deceased Ram Prakash Yadav was posted as Assistant Teacher at Poorve Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Tikrauli, Sumerpur, District Hamirpur. On 20.5.2003, deceased was going by his cycle to attend the school when he reached at Rath Mor (Turn), Mahoba road at about 6:45 A.M, a Truck bearing registration No. UP-787-1646 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner coming from opposite side hit the cycle, as a result of which, deceased sustained grievous injuries, thereafter, he was taken to the hospital. During treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on 25.5.2003. At the time of accident, deceased was aged about 40 years and getting Rs. 10,522/- per month as salary and earning Rs. 2,500/- per month as private tuition. Therefore a sum of Rs. 45,86,500/- has been claimed as compensation by the claimants. FIR of the said accident was lodged against the driver of the said offending Truck at Police Station Kotwali Hamirpur which was registered as Case Crime No. 400 of 2003 under Sections 289, 337, 338 IPC and 3/184/192/177 of Motor Vehicles Act. After investigation of the case, police has submitted charge-sheet against the driver of the said Truck under Sections 289, 337, 338, 304-A IPC and 3/184/192/177 of Motor Vehicles Act. Post-mortem of the deceased was conducted by the Doctor. At the time of accident, said Truck was insured with the appellant-insurance company.
(3.) The claim petition was contested by the owner of the said Truck denying the allegations by filing written-statement. Owner of the said Truck pleaded that accident-in-question had not occurred due to rash and negligence driving of the driver of the said Truck and in any view of the matter since the Truck was insured with the appellant-insurance company and the driver was having a valid driving licence, the liability was on the insurance-company. It was pleaded on behalf of the appellant-insurance company that claim petition has been filed on false and concocted story. At the time of accident, said Truck was being driven by the driver, not having the driving licence at all. Therefore, insurance-company was not liable for payment of compensation as such the claim petition was liable to be dismissed.;